this is something going in my mind.
I will write my answer in term of questions but you don't need to answer them as mush as you do for the main topic.
(I believe that the first step of knowledge is to be curious and ask)
*do we believe because we need hope?
*do we seek for external power because we can't find enough power from ourselves and we feel empty as some atheists say?
*do we really feel thankful to whome gave us our lives?
*do we rely on God's existence to feel secure that justice will be applied at some time?
*did we know by reading and watching that there is some sort of powerful mind controling everything?(that means science led us to believe).
*do we disbelieve to escape from any constraint?
*do we like our minds so much to the limit we want to use them to explain everything without concerning external powers we don't know?
*are we not thankful to our creator?
*we don't believe in something we don't see?(if so , how do we believe in electricity for example).
*do we think life is worth nothing and we all will die and become nothing?
best regards to believers and nonbelievers.
I am a believer without question. Thankful every God damned day! God gives me courage and strenght to break free of the confines of religion. As unethical at is sounds to some hard core fanatics. I really with all my heart feel free under God and there isn't anything anyone can do or say that will change my mind.
I believe in God and God is to me my mind and heart to be set free. Because of God I don't fear men. Certainly I fear things like murder and catastrophes but it's very liberating and at times I get filled up with happiness because I know that no matter how bad I look to some people, what I have between God and I can't be broken and I can't find any logical reason to have to commit my life to the ways of common man.
I don't believe in fighting, I live up to the commandments, especially numero uno #1, and above all else, I believe that I will be ok under God.
I don't spend soo much time thinking about the afterlife, but more time in my heart and mind thinking about how to set the world free.
I don't spend too much time worrying about non-believers, there disbelief doesn't effect me, only their actions, which goes the same for some believers, it's in thier actions that make life difficult. With or without God, people inherited goodness, so I believe if we set them free from having to chose, the world would be a better place.
these are the posts which are related to my concerns:
I prefer the two below the most.
I will now answer all your questions to the best of my ability Eng M
I believe that the first step of knowledge is to be curious and ask - I agree
*do we believe because we need hope? Yes
*do we seek for external power because we can't find enough power from ourselves and we feel empty as some atheists say? Yes
*do we really feel thankful to whom gave us our lives?No
*do we rely on God's existence to feel secure that justice will be applied at some time?Yes
*did we know by reading and watching that there is some sort of powerful mind controling everything?Yes that is part of what makes you believe.
(that means science led us to believe).No
*do we disbelieve to escape from any constraint?No
*do we like our minds so much to the limit we want to use them to explain everything without concerning external powers we don't know?Doesn't make sense in English
*are we not thankful to our creator?There is no creator
*we don't believe in something we don't see?Yes
(if so , how do we believe in electricity for example).I see electricity every time there is a thunderstorm.
*do we think life is worth nothing and No
we all will die and become nothing?Yes
There is a clear pattern here of an assumption that there is a creator and any one who does not believe is wrong. The questions are worded in such a way as to make this obvious. So I will re-phrase them to make more sense:
I believe that the first step of knowledge is to be curious and ask, but I will still believe what I believe regardless of the evidence presented to me and thus render this statement meaningless.I agree
*do we believe because we need hope and everyone knows that the only hope is in the afterlife? Yes
*do we seek for external power because we can't find enough power from ourselves and we feel empty and unimportant, whereas we want to be more important than the bats and the ants and cannot accept that we are not? Yes
*do we really feel thankful to the natural process of evolution?No
*do we rely on God's existence to feel secure that justice will be applied at some time in the future and then waste our lives believing something in the hope that it will make our sad lives more full?Yes
*have we been persuaded by those sad people before us whose only hope was in an afterlife that there is some sort of powerful mind controlling everything?Yes that is part of what makes you believe.
Science- is it worth listening to?Yes
Not believing in something that there is no proof of when some one insists it is there and no one can see it.
*do we disbelieve to escape from any constraint?We do attempt to escape the constraints of the political and limiting beliefs of the organized religions
*do we like our minds so much to the limit we want to use them to explain everything without concerning external powers we don't know?Still doesn't make sense in English
*are we not thankful that nature is so wonderful that it allowed us to evolve in this way?Yes
*we don't believe in something there is absolutely no proof for?Yes
Electricity for example is visible to us and there are many things we can't see that are measurable - do we still believe in them even if there is just evidence of it and we do not understand the process- like evolution? Yes
*do we think life is worth nothing and No
we all will die and become nothing?Yes
they were concerns but thanx anyway
to which I didn't say anything below, I agree with you at.
science leads some people to belief and doesn't do for othere.
it depends on an individual and the reason of his research.
sometimes we do.
we worship our minds.
then there's no you.
you see light.
anyway,do you see electrons?
what does it worth? is it valuable?
so sad. then we have to catch up and do everything we want with ignoring otheres.
do all animals ignore others?
here, Mark changed my concerns to what he thinks I mean deeply in my intentions because he knows me very well .looooooooooooool
I can't deny that each of us is influnced by constant ideas but we are still learning and I learnt something from him.
my main concerns were just about(why do we believe or disbelieve)
I put some concerns to explain my aim and they should reflect my character but it doesn't mean that I am searching for something with a prior judgement from me.
lets look to Mark's concerns:
you are approximately right.
but don't forget that you must have constants in life and try to learn new things beside them.
instinct and own feelings come with extra knowledge you have in life.
may be for some people. I could be one of them but no evidences were presented by you or any other evolutionist.
loooooooooooooooool oh man, it likes you think you know me.
I didn't mean that.
hope could be during life also.
I hope you understand.
humans are different and not more important than other creatures and believing in God doesn't change anything.
you must be thankful to evolution man because your existence is because of it.
if it makes you happier.
there are many prooves but you don't believe them.
evolution has not even one proof but you believe it.
good point.I agree.
why? are we ungrateful to nature?
you don't measure things you don't see but you do for their effects.
electrons for example.
how can evolution be measureable.
I see it can be assumed.
Woww. That was a big one, but I will just pick this out
You seem under the misapprehension that belief in scientific evidence is the same as belief in an unseen, unproven god.
Why is that? Because it doesn't fit with your "knowledge"?
I am assuming you are an engineer? And therefore rely on many scientific developments for your work?
Or do you just trust in god that whatever materials you are using will be OK? No stress testing, no scientific testing at all?
A scaffold or crane made of reeds will work just fine - trust in god, or science?
Go back and read Eng M's statements. This was aimed at him.
And to you - why not neither?
they are not the same.
but both needs thinking and bias.
I am still learning.I have my attitudes to life but many of them could be changed.
is this logic.thanx
see. it is easier than working and testing everything.
I would just like to point out that there is not really a disbelief in something until some one says it is there.
green univarticles from the planet junifornus are a small, green, carbon based god-like being that exists solely to prevent trnnks from the planet pshas from eating thoogs from the plantet fartii.
I just made all that up, so do you now dis-believe in this?
waw man , that was so quick(looooool)
I got confused man.
did you mean untill some one says there is disbelief?
I see you'v got a good point here but I couldn't understand it.
I don't know about it.
but if you give me some evidence of thier existence , I would think about it then.(their footprints or any of thier effects)
finally, you always say that you'v studied some living being and ended to become an atheist.
what did you study and why did you believe in evolution after it?
What I mean is - No one has any reason to "disbelieve" in something unless some one else tells them it exists without being able to show it exists. So, I am not sure there even is such a thing as disbelieving in something such as god. The point is moot. I don't disbelieve in god. That's is like saying, well, god exists, but there are 2 kinds of people - people who believe and people who disbelieve.
to be an atheist that means you disbelieve in God existence and that what I meant in the first place.
I think it is clear and direct.
I don't think that everything in life must be argumentative and philosophical as you suggested earlier.
believing in God or anything we don't see means to trust their existence from their effects.
people who don't believe are those who think these effects of existence are not enough or convincing.
in this case , they should tell us why they are not persuaded by these proofs.(they are not disbelievers in this case)
you could say it might be exactly the opposite.
then, I well ask you to give me proofs of God inexistence and I will tell you why I am not convinced.
you got it.
you choose the game you wanna play and I am in.
we will assume the same.
if you assume they exist then give me proofs and I will tell you why I don't believe thier existence and this is in the case neither of us has seen them.
I could tell you why they don't exist and you tell me why you disbelieve their inexistence.
so, you have two games now, start from wherever you like.
finally, you were right , belief and disbelief are very flexible expressions and confusing BUT you could deal with them if you put a reference for yourself.
have a good day
We <<know>> that dark matter exists, ir requires no belief because science can <<measure>> the effects of it and thus observe it indirectly.
Dark matter makes up 95% of our universe yet we know hardly anything about it, yet. You could call this "faith" but this is not faith, this is knowing something exists because our >>instruments<< detect it through it's effects. Usually the only faith involved is in our ability to continue to try to understand what this dark matter is. However, sometimes we can confuse our faith in another scientist with understanding of that scientist's hypothesis. That is rare but forgiveable and sincerely human in error.
I think we would be able to believe or disbelieve BUT it would be a different type of belife than believing in God.
believing in God needs more than hearing a scienist talking about an especialised issue he discovered.
it is a theory.
it could be theoritical faith based on knowledge.
whereas believing in God includes other factors like some forms of emotions.
we could be closer from one fact than another or be biased in our position.
but not necessarily believing something we don't know enough.
even if God doesn't exist,
then we could say there are two groups -who believe and who disbelieve in God.
and another two groups- who believe in evolution and who don't
so are all believers and disbelievers in diiferent things .
nither there's God(prooved or not prooved) nor there's no God.
And now you are resorting to mis-quoting me. I never said that the way you quoted me.
This is what I said:
That is like saying - "well, god exists, but there are 2 kinds of people - people who believe and people who disbelieve."
There is no proof that there is a god. That is enough to prove there is no god.
So, do you disbelieve in them or not?
And there is no evidence for the existence of a god, therefore no need to "disbelieve."
Well rather than have a convoluted discussion that will confuse both of us, I will start by saying this:
I do not believe in god, because despite my best efforts, I have found absolutely no evidence to support the existence of one.
We can take it from there.
there are many evidnces that we provide but you don't accept them and I will give you one below.
you should either say why you don't think it isn't an evidence or why you don't accept it.
*we believe God exists from its different effects(systems in nature: so if people don't convince that accurate systems in nature were made by a mind, why they do believe that their accurate devices at home were made by smart people they haven't seen).
this is my simple easy example.
existence and inexistence are two cases , so we should deal with them equally without superiority to any position of them.
many believers tried to demonstrate his existence, so there were demonstrations but you don't think they are convincing enough and that differes from one to another to judge them.
good and strong attitude but I slightly disagree with you.
it is right that all of us must have a thinking reference , but I think we should listen to every opinion carefuly and leave our senses decide if there would be a change in our bases.
I actually wrote this thread because I was wondering why people believe or disbelieve.
you believe to be thankful and to feel secure.
you believe to get power from God and this really works with many people.
is that right?
you disbelieve because you think that things people provided for God existence are not convincing to you.
is that right?
is there anything would convince of his existence except seeing him?
don't you think that you become arrogant by asking this?
Th sages say that man is very arrogant.One can see the intelligence in all life.We are still finding animals immensely small and huge in the oceans which we did not know existed till now.Our knowledge is so limited there has to be higher intelligence at work.We know we have a heart and lungs by reading or watching pictures about it no other way-we see it in others and not in ourselves.The human body is so complex as well is this universe.The Vatican made a statement that life or aliens may exist,we may not be alone after all.Yet the sages also say you must come across god yourself,you believeing is good but ulitimate proof lies in the experience called enlightenment.
I think some main disagreement betweeen belivers and disbelievers are:
1-disbelievers need to see God.
2-disbelievers think proofs believers provided are not convincing.
(this need for deep scientific researches in different areas)
3-disbelivers' concerns about who created God.
*what do you think?
Yes the logic will be who made god?
God is the first thing, no body made him.
if we believed in evolution for a second.
then, everything was made by chance or nature.
that means nature is the first thing in life.
there must be a first thing.
either God(powerful) or nature(weak)
some atheists say that nature is strong.
if it is so , then it is living and that what we call God.
is that rationl?
Yes I agree with you god is,has,was,will,he is beyond time and space.
It is just a view point of an athiest-who made god?
God is beyond any logic.
When you have answered my last question, I will answer this, but if you want to be considered for this thread:
you are going to have to do a lot better than that.
I am still discussing in that thread.
as you see , I am the last poster there.
I am talking about logic.
my intention is not to convince you, but I could get persuaded by you in many points.
my intention is to make a rational unbiased discussion.
When I say spasiba am I correct-went to Russia when i was a kid.
you are right.
but it answers part of my concerns and not all of them.
in my opinion, biased public scientific researches are very important to clarify the truth.(whatever it is)
but could that be possible through media?
you are right.
creation complexities are everywhere.
atheists believe these complexities came by chance but they don't know how.
believers (especially scientists) should clarify that these complexities are very accurate and couldn't have been without a powerful designer.
you can't convince them if they keep being arrogant.
we might persuade them if we start from the begining and give them the chance to persuade us of thier opinions.
we could do it if we try to think like atheists and be biased.
My ultimate proof came from seeing God, enlightenment came later. My ultimate faith was put to the test. To stand in the face of fear, to feel your heart drop into the pits of your stomach, to feel your bones weaken beneith you, your mind and body parylized in fear. But I stood there and looked into God, my mind taken, my doubts and faith replaced by knowledge that the One came, scared me half to death only by it's presence, yet never hurt me.
God's presense is so powerful that even though I love and cherish the day we met and am eager to meet again, but I will be just as fearfull next time but instead of relying on faith, I can rely on proof, that God does not hurt people.
seeing God, enlightenment-same thing Sandra.
Well...when you see God, then you can understand the difference.
much love to you Mohit.
Do you mean you felt his presence the aliveness of the universe?Then got enlightened later on
Many mountaineers and astronauts have felt the aliveness of the universe.I think Neel Armstrong-he was an athiest and after he went into space became a believer and a preacher.
I feel the aliveness of the universe.
Neil Armstrong was an atheist. It was an unfounded rumor that he had converted to Islam. There was also another rumor that he was a devout christian. He certainly never became a preacher.
A few astronauts and sailors who were athiests have become believers.Being alone in vastness makes you feel very small and insignificant.On the ship I felt like a speck on the ship ,the ship a small speck in the ocean,the ocean-this earth a small speck in this universe-absolutely insignificant.I was forced to contemplate.
You do feel the aliveness of this universe-you do understand everything is alive .
Well in a way you are a believer.
Also god is in you as much as he is outside.
I have been with friends in outdoors and I ask them -do you feel the aliveness-they say no.
You are more of a believer than them.Everyone is not able to feel the aliveness.And these people believed in god.strange.
Yes, I feel the aliveness. Yes, I believe I am part a something larger than myself. In the same way as a grain of sand or an ant is a part of it. I feel it with as much of myself as I allow to do so and still function on a daily basis. I can sit on a rock and feel the earth's vibrations. I watch the bats and marvel at their skill in the air. I cannot wear any crystal other than a diamond close to my body because it will break into pieces.
But. I do not need to believe this is because it was created by a god, or that I am in any way important other than being a very, very insignificant part of this.
You are intelligent-would you prefer using the word cosmos rather than god.Trust me only the evolved think like you.
Or rather the cosmos is over god has.
I would like to gift you my new edition ebook,have yet to come out with it in the market,will do so soon.If you could be so kind enough to givem your email
Tell me please i am very inquisitive about all this-pleaaaaaaaaaaasssssssssse.
I love hearing about other peoples spiritual experiences.
Ah the eagles emanations-the shamanic vision-awesome.
Lots of love
Very interesting. I didn't have any idea the Eagle was connected to the Shaman. Interestingly enough, I looked it up, didn't find too much accept an acceptance of what I am. Thanks Mohit. I saw your message, I will be reading it later and get back to you.
Many people have seen God without becoming enlightened.
Many people have become enlightened without seeing God.
The two are completely independent phenomena.
However, I do know of several people who have seen God and then afterward mistakenly believed they were enlightened as a result.
Yes, that is correct. The things people provided for god existence are not convincing to me.
What you seem to be saying is that because I have a stereo in my house that was made by a smart person (assuming the robot that made it had a programmer) this is in fact proof that anything else that is in existence appears to be a system, this must therefore have been created by a being with a mind. And this being was god. And you know this. And there could not be another explanation. This must be the way it happened.
Is that correct?
Just to be certain:
It must have been created by a god because there is no other explanation.
And you know this.
That is correct? No other explanation. Must have been made by god. There must be a supreme being with ultimate powers that is omnipresent and omniscient. And you know this for sure? Because it is the only possible explanation.
There are many things that would convince me of her existence. I have listed a few elsewhere, but yes lots of things. What do you have to offer other than the argument you have already given? Anything concrete. Anything that doesn't rely on me taking your word that this is the way it is because there is no other explanation? Anything really..... Please?
No. I think you are arrogant in claiming to know the origins of our world and the universe that surrounds it.
*you are right, you are being rational.
*is there anything in life more powerful than knowledge.
*and yes, 'no other explanation' is the only way we have if you wanted to believe without a holy book.
*reading alot about creatures is the only way of believing.
*I can understand your logic of seeking another way to believe other than the 'only explanation' concept.
*but, don't forget that we can look at everything in the world from different angles depending on our situations.
*may be God wanted the 'only explanation way'.
*do you think that this way didn't work with many believers and they think it did? did they want only their empty as you said earlier? what empty?
I was just asking and not saying you are arrogant.
I really didn't mean to insult you.
I am sorry anyway.
Oh, I am not offended in any way. No need to apologize.
But, I do not understand the argument that you are putting forward for proof of a god.
It just doesn't make sense to me. Saying that the only possible explanation for something that we do not know the beginnings of is that there must have been a god that made it makes no sense to me as a rational person.
I can certainly understand how it would make you feel better. Part of something bigger than yourself and somehow important to that.
I do not feel the need to do that.
I accept my place in the scheme of things, and that does not include a creator. Or at least, not a thinking being such as most religions describe.
If you want to argue that nature is the creator, maybe I could go with that, but I still don't see any intelligent design behind it.
In fact, there are a lot of good arguments against that idea. But I will not share them with you (I will wait for Jenny to do that)
From my own personal perspective though. I thought about it, studied it, read all the religious books about it and came to the conclusion that there was no god.
Then, I discovered evolution.
Not the other way 'round.
And I cannot accept the argument that because evolution does not explain abiogenesis, it is invalid.
You can only make that argument from a faith-based position.
As for what you call knowledge, I would disagree that you have any. You may have a belief, or faith, but that is not the same thing.
Mark your inner being is god,you are it.
just in case
why it doesn't make sense?
creating is either done by God(mind) or nature(blind).
I choose mind because I see designing everywhere.
what is designing? it is accurate planning.
I feel better and better when I get closer from the truth.
then, I will feel happy 24 hours a day.
did you try to do that?
do you know the difference?
everyone should accept his place.
believing of God existence doesn't cancel this.
so you believe in a creator but not a thinking one? why?
because there are no proofs that it is a thinking thing in your opinion.
how do you explain human intelligence?
did you study creatures enough?
didn't you notice any intelligent system?
do you want me to bring you some intelligent designed telecommunications systems in nature since I am an engineer in this aspect?
as you wish.
I respect your personal experiences but I don't agree with you.
many believers become believes because thier parents were so.
I started from the beginig and I realized God existence but I still don't understand everything about him or his creatures.
but I am sure there is intelligence in nature.
what about science-based position?
what about logic-based position?
what knowledge are you talking about?
knowledge is infinite and comparing to it, we all know nothing.
faith comes from knowledge and luck.
thanx for your precious time
Neither of these hold up to rational arguments. (see the other thread)
But your position remains the same. The only thing you can understand or accept is that there must have been a creator. This is the only theory that makes sense to you.
There must have been a creator because it could not have just happened on its own. It could not have been an accident. It could not be a joke. It could not be an experiment by an Alien species. The Flying Spaghetti monster could not have done it. We could not be just a universe inside a pen cap inside another larger universe. There could not be billions of alternate universes and this one is different to all the others in that it happened naturally. No other possibilities exist for you.
Therefore there is a creator. And you know the intention of this creator.
To me, this is the height of arrogance.
But if you would care to back it up with some science or logic, I would be happy to nominate you for the other thread (You cannot nominate your own stuff)
The whole idea of an intelligent creator with an interest in me just doesn't make sense.
Why doesn't it make sense?
That is hard to argue, and the only need I see to argue it is that some people choose to believe it and insist that they know the truth.
It doesn't make sense because of what I see around me. If I was omnipotent, I would have done a much, much better job than this. Would I have created a world full of people that continually strive to enslave and kill those around them? No. Would I have created a world full of humans intent on self-destruction? No.
If you believe in the christian god - would I have created a hell to hold the demons and then accidentally stick a bunch of human souls in it to roast for all eternity? Nope......
If you choose to believe this, I wonder why it is important that you attempt to persuade others that this is the case?
No one knows the intention correctly.No one understands its vastness.To come in contact and experience bliss is posssible,and go to godhead on death.Paramhansa Yoganada talks about going to different dimensions after death and teaching love even there-all knowledge is not possible i fully agree with you..Like the Sikh saints say how is the son to know about the father.
consider rationality, forget everthing else.
lets just talk about logic.
yes that's right.
there must be a powerful mind.
everything is possible , but a mind is still required.
I don't know.
it depends on many factors to judge this I guess.
lets start with logic.
we can believe but can't insist that our belief is the truth untill we discover by ourselves when we die.
but may be he has an ultimate great purpose by doing what he did.
like testing us.(I just assume but am not sure loooooooooool)
I believe in one God.
this is your strongest argument.
many people don't want to believe because of this.
we need to think about more.
do you know exactly what type of punishment will be there?
neither of us do.
is it going to be justiceable? (I think so, because God has created justice)
what is justice?
I don't know what this is to believe in or not.
believe me, I am not trying to persuade others of anything.
I am trying to understand your logic and learn from it.
thanx and have a nice quite weekend
do you think it is enough?
not finding evidences.
you should have been neither a believer nor a revolutionist since you have no evidences for the last one.
What's a revolutionist? Because I don't think I am one of them either
Yes, it is enough. But there are other reasons also. But hard to argue in a logical fashion.
I have experienced what I think you call god, and it is not god....
I read the holy books and they didn't make any sense and some of them are clearly either lies, contradictory information or misinterpretations of other books that do not subscribe to the same religion. And much of what is written in them is clearly self-serving. I have only ever met one man who practiced what he preached.
I have experienced and seen things that could not have happened if there was a god.
I am much more anti-religion than anti-god, but the two go hand in hand for most people.
I meant evolutionist.
sorry, English is not my first language as you can see.
are you sure you are not a revolutionist or going to be one?
We have discussed this issue several times before on this particular Forum.
My position is basically the same as Mark's: Why would we need to prove the non-existence of someone whose existence cannot be demonstrated in the first place?
I've read somewhere that people believe in God because it helps them to accept the fact that they will die. I remember that I was reading that article and thinking: "yeah, so much true - the religion helps people to accept death, but in most cases it makes their life miserable".
You keep talking about logic, but you have not used a logical argument to back up your statement. I do not consider this to be a logical argument:
Would you mind giving a different explanation, because this just sounds to me like a question rather than a logical argument. And it also assumes that I believe my "accurate devices," by which I think you mean things like a clock were made by smart people. Even the things I have made myself?
i.e. what I think you are saying here is this -
"If you believe your clock was made by a smart person, why do you not believe that the universe was also made by a smart person?"
And I fail to see the logic in this question. Or how it in any way makes any sense whatsoever actually. It just appears to be another way of saying:
"I do not know the answer. Therefore there must be a god. Because it is not acceptable to me that I do not know the answer. I have no evidence or proof that this is the case, but it is more important to me that I have an answer than that I have a correct or reasonable answer."
Then perhaps I can understand how you have logically deduced that there is a god?
simply without questions.
*IF there must be a smart maker for a small devise (your PC)
*THEN there must be a smarter maker for a larger device(your brain)
both, PC and your brain ,make calculations.
both have short term and long term memories.
did you read any information of what you brain do.
tell me one?
tell me where the illogic of what I said is?
point to it.
don't keep going around me and yourself all the time.
you are making me dizzy man.
if you don't consider this logic.
then, tell me you logic.
What I do not understand is the leap from one to the other.
Why must there be a smarter maker for a larger device, just because there was a smart maker for my PC?
I see no logic to this statement you have made and cannot see the connection. There is no logical reasoning or argument here. Nothing. If you are interested in the various types of logic available to use, this is a good link to the meaning of logic.
So, I will attempt to use logic to prove this statement by adding a few logical arguments, but I will highlight the point at which it fails to make any sense.
There is a smart maker for a small device - in this case, a PC
This PC has a manufacturer and serial number
I have spoken in person with the company that made the PC
I know they exist for sure because I have spoken with them
Therefore I know who made this PC - Apple
This PC makes calculations
My Brain makes calculations
Because a PC and my brain both make calculations, this means that there must have been a smart maker for my brain
Therefore there is a god
See the problem? I could as easily use this flawed argument in almost any way I choose:
There is a smart maker for a small device - in this case, a PC
This PC has a manufacturer and serial number
I have spoken in person with the company that made the PC
I know they exist for sure because I have spoken with them
Therefore I know who made this PC - Apple
This PC makes calculations
My Brain makes calculations
Because a PC and my brain both make calculations, this means that my brain was made by the same company that made my PC. In this case, Apple.
Therefore I was made by Apple
See what I mean?
I saw what you mean.
lets look at it again.
your PC was made by Apple, you called them and you know they have the ability to make it.
your brain is more complicated than you PC and neither Apple nor any other known company you may call and ask can make it.
therefore it was made by a more powerful mind than Apple.
you may refuse this to be logical because you think the last statement just shows there's no other explanation than it.
*can't 'the only explanation' be logical?
what is logic?
correct me please: it's a conclusion about something you don't know by derving it from something you know in a reasonable clear way.
for example, Peter is John's father.
therefore , he is older than John.
logic can be taken in different ways.
some logic results are more argumantative than others.
this is a weak logical result because your brain and PC are similar but not identical.
here is a stronger one:
There is a smart maker for a small device - in this case, a PC
This PC has a manufacturer and serial number
I have spoken in person with the company that made the PC
I know they exist for sure because I have spoken with them
Therefore I know who made this PC - Apple
This PC makes calculations
My Brain makes calculations but more accurate and powerful than any man made PC
Because a PC and my brain both make calculations with different capabilities, this means that my brain and my PC were made by different level of powers.
you don't need logic to realize this but knowledge.
you use your senses to know it.
you use logic in case you didn't call them and ask them but deducted that there must be a maker by observing PC abilities.
That is a reasonable way of describing it.
But you are not doing that.
You are jumping from one thing to something completely unrelated without using any steps to get there.
Lets take a look at your reasoning:
First of all, you have missed all the steps that I can go through to ascertain that my PC was indeed made by Apple:
1. It says Apple on the case
2. It said Apple on the box it came in
3. I have spoken to Apple, both on the phone and in person
4. etc etc etc.......
But you have agreed that I cannot do those steps with my brain.
Yet you are saying the making of my brain is exactly the same as the making of my PC
Despite some rather glaring differences
1. My brain cannot do many of the things my PC can - that is why I need one
2. I cannot connect to the internet with my brain (yet lol)
3. My brain does not say Apple on the case
4. My brain did not say Apple on the box
5. etc etc etc.......
Yet as far as you are concerned, they are the same for the purposes of this argument.
PC vs Brain - The same.
Therefore a god made my brain.
This is also discounting the fact that there are any number of alternate possibilities that make more sense to a rational person. Especially when you consider the other evidence around us.
What you would need to do is fill in the blanks between the 2 statements to be able to call this a logical argument.
Keep on repeating the same thing over and over without adding anything is not doing that. All you are doing is saying this same thing in slightly different ways. And it is obvious to me that you are starting from the premise that there is a creator and working backwards from that.
Rather than logically deducing the existence of one from the information at hand.
Just keep on saying.
"This exists, therefore there was a creator."
Which is what you are doing, is not a logical deduction or reasoning.
You are working backwards from a pre-decided conclusion and attempting to find things to support that conclusion.
"There was a creator. Therefore anything that exists proves that there is a creator. Therefore there is a creator."
Is what you are actually saying.
I will try to follow this way and please judge my statements bias as much as you can.
try to forget we arguing from different viwes and I will.
what thing to what?
I told you they are similar but not identical so they don't have to be exactly the same but they only have to follow the same logical rules.
that means we will deal with logic in a certain way and see if it can stand alone.
I will put some logical rules at the end of this post and you suggest what it needs to be replaced or changed bias.
actually I didn't miss it.
but let assum that you have a product you can't contact his maker, are you going to say it doesn't have one because I don't know it?
NO........this is LOGIC (DO you understand?)
also, I haven't agreed they are exactly the same.
so, why do you think identicalness is important in logical relations?
if it is so, you need no or less logic to know results.
I will by setting some rules for our logic comparisons.
may be you are right.
lets set our logic comparison rules:
1-we have a PC and and you brain.
2-we don't know who made both of them and can't contact thier makers.
3-both make calculations but with different complexities.
4-they are similar for what we want (calculations) and not identical.
5-they have different functions but still need similar capabilities.
6-both have memories.
7-both need power.
Now in most cases
*PC ----- make certain calculations ------ certain capabilities ------ certain accurate functions ------ we don't know maker -------WE ASSUME it has a certain desiner (because it is doing its job almost without mistakes and that means it has a maker that can make something with these capabilities)
*Brain ----- make certain calculations -----certain capabilities ----- certain accurate functions ----- we don't know maker ------ WE ASSUME it has a certain designer (because it is doing its job almost without mistakes and that means it has a maker that can make something with these capabilities)
you got my point.
now, I slightly began to understand your logic but it is kind of coming and rashly disappearing from my mind.
I want to get to your mind, so help me please.
This is the crux.
You are starting from an assumption that every thing is made by a creator.
And if you start from that point, your logic makes 100% sense. Absolutely. No question. This statement makes complete sense:
But. Only if you start from this premise:
Everything was made by a being with a mind.A Creator.
If we assume this, your logic is bang on. Perfect. No argument from me. Sure, I am more complex than my PC, therefore I was created by something with a more powerful mind than Apple. No argument.
But. That is the only way it makes any sense.
Now - assume that this premise is incorrect and make this logic work.
Start from a different point. Whatever you like other than "everything must have been created by a being with a mind." Your choice.
The Buddha says that thoughts are the building blocks of the universe.Its your thoughts which make everything manifest.Each being the centre.
The shamans say we co-create.
do you want expression games or logic/
I wont assume there is a creator.
I don't know what this word mean.
lets use the same rules
Now in most cases
*PC ----- make certain calculations ------ certain capabilities ------ certain accurate functions ------someone must have made it that accurate.
*Brain ----- make certain calculations -----certain capabilities ----- certain accurate functions ----- we don't know maker ------ someone must have made it that accurate.
really man, I was closer from your mind , so don't let me go further from it.
I really wanna understand how you think.
I didn't start from a fact there is God.
I started form :
this is something-----it is accurate-----who made it accurate
(chance doesn't make anything accurate)
Are you sure you didn't start from the fact that there must be a creator ?
yes , I am sure.
these are conclusions I guess.
otherwise, tell me what a conclusion is?
These are conclusions drawn from no facts.
This is what I mean by missing all the logical steps out.
What facts have made you come to this conclusion?
What steps were involved in reaching this "conclusion"?
Other than this is what you believe?
And moving this statement from the beginning to part way through doesn't alter the fact that this is what your argument rests on.
Everything was made by a being with a mind. A Creator.
With this in there, your arguments make sense. Take it out, and they make no sense.
So, if you can logically prove this, you have a winning argument.
I supposed you have a simple prior knowledge of easy priciples and definitions such as:
designing,systems,accuracy,requirement,brain,functions and etc..
I don't think we need this kind of knowledge.
try to follow the following steps:
*processor:the main control system in PC's.
*brain:the main control sytem in our nervous system.
*system:integrated parts for doing one function.ould be there is a minimum accuracy for any system to work properly.
for this to happen, it should be designed by somehow.
*function:a specific useful job.
*device:something does a certain function.
*accuracy:a measure of performance for systems.
2-answering some issues:
*is processor an accurate system?
yes, because it consists of several logic gates to achieve caculations with no or minimum errors.
*is brain a system?
yes,it has many parts to achieve many functions like behaving.
we can judge that it is accurate because if you want to do something you are capable of you can do it usually.
3-each accurate system need a designer.
a processor needs a designer
**a brain needs a designer
http://www.racai.ro/~dragam/The_brain_a … cessor.htm
Yet here you are again making the self same assumption.
This is the part that needs justifying. lol
Not the fact that the brain and the PC are similar in operation. I cannot argue with the fact that a brain and a PC perform similarly. There are some major differences, but essentially, I can accept that part of your argument.
But. Why does a brain need a designer ?
Your entire argument makes sense - Until you get to this bit. Why does a brain need a designer just because a PC has a designer ?
How do you conclude that each accurate system needs a designer ? What logical steps have you taken to discover this?
This is the entire basis of your argument boiled down and you are just saying the same thing over and over in different ways:
1. A PC does XYZ
2. A brain does XYZ
3. A PC has a designer
Therefore a brain needs a designer.
I wonder why we have them in the first place...thoughts.
Judging from the amount of people I see not using theirs, I am not so sure we do need them
to make our lives easy or difficult.....I guess
we need them to know what should we eat..........lool
you are right.lol
I am happy we got there.
I need to answer these issues now:
1-what accuracy?what types of accuracy are there?
2-Is brain an accurate system? how accurate is it? what level of accuracy?
3-does each accurate system need a desinger? or only some of them?
I will let you know about answers very soon after I get my thoughts organized.
have nice thoughts
LOL - This is where we started.
I have highlighted the only part that needs an answer.
For the purposes of this discussion, I am more than happy to concede that both a PC and a brain are very similar in operation and accuracy. I will also concede that a brain is the more complex of the two.
Now - persuade me that it must have been designed and created by a being with a mind and there is no other possibility.
Have nice thoughts yourself.
I am glad you acknowledged that brains are more complex than PC processors.
I will just try to classify how accurate brains are ? because it will help me to explain why this accuracy need a designer.
in another way, you want to know if man-made rules applies on nature.
I'll see what I am going to do about it.lol
God or chance helps me.lol
I say that chance alone itself doesn't create accuracy.
I don't understand how a roulette works but I think it is accuracy that leads to chance in this case(the opposite).
again, they produced an accurate tool that produces random logarithms.
a GPS receiver determines its position and other parameters by processing signals sent from several satellites.
it depends on accuracy.
it depends on assumption and checking accuracy of the assumption as I know.
I need to review this theory.
it seems interesting.
it means we are not sure about many theories at our hands today.
that's what we are debating.
God or chance?
this is a nice answer for the main topic.
but, can humans have all answers?
what answers do we need to have?
it depends on how we define accuracy.
No, it won't. I am prepared to concede that a brain is as many times more complex or more accurate than a PC as you like. 1,0000000000000000000000 times more complex?
Fine with me. I don't see what difference that makes.
No. I do not want to know if man made rules apply to nature. Nature has it's own way of "designing" things called evolution. A completely different thing.
I want you to logically prove that my brain must have been created by a being with a mind.
it will make a lot of difference.
OK, you got it.
but please give me an example of a conclusion for a logical comparison so I can understand how you define logic.
you know logic is a very flexible word.
No, logic is not a flexible word. I will give you an example (A short one) lol
This is logical:
I was born in 1961 on 30th August at 1 a.m.in Newbury, England.
Fred was born in 1961 on 30th August at 1 a.m. in Newbury, England.
I like chocolate.
Therefore we have the same birthday.
This is illogical:
I was born in 1961 on 30th August at 1 a.m.in Newbury England.
Fred was born in 1961 on 30th August at 1 a.m. in Newbury England.
I like chocolate.
Therefore Fred likes chocolate.
this is completely right But it is not related to logic.
if you wanted to relate it to logic in my opinion , then you have to say:
I was born in 1961 on 30th August at 1 a.m.
Fred was born in 1961 on 30th August at 1 a.m.
Therefore I am as old as Fred.
LOGIC is to get a result from another result.
My dog eats, sleeps, and chases birds out of the vege patch.
My husband eats, sleeps, and chases birds out of the vege patch.
My dog was created via artificial insemination.
Therefore my husband was created via artificial insemination?
Eng M writes Hubs and argues in the Religion Forum.
Mark Knowles writes Hubs and argues in the Religion Forum.
Eng M is motivated by his belief in God.
Therefore, Mark Knowles is motivated by his belief in God?
Now can you see that this argument has a flawed logical structure?
This says nothing abot the truth or falsity of the conclusion. It simply says that you cannot reach that conclusion via logic from your starting premises.
not necessarily, because it is not highly related.do not think similarities between your husband and dog.
think about who does all these activities.
(a living being)
you have to make it general.
also , we both are motivated by belief and not necessarily in God.
I agree, I can't start from my belief.
would you give me one logical conclusion from two similar cases?
the problem is I think it is logical that accuracy needs a designer.
you don't think so.
so it is all about logic basics.
believe me , logic studies are not easy.
I am just trying to understand a little bit from them.
There you have it. You think it is logical that accuracy needs a designer. Why?
Because you believe in a creator.
No logic involved.
why do you think so?
may be .
I will really search deeper inside my mind.
also, I may have this logic because I understand that my mind is working very well.
and I ASKED myself this question.WHY is it working good?
does my brain have a function in life?
yes, then a something with a function is a device.
a device is something desinged.
There's your problem.
Chance and accuracy are totally compatible.
A roulette wheel in a casino operates by chance - it is legally required to be completely random, and it is policed and monitored to make sure it is completely random.
Whe it operates completely randomly, its accuracy is amazing. Run the wheel over and over for as long as you like, and it will always come up with a red 18 out of 37 (or 38 if there is a double 0) times on average.
Password-cracking software relies on chance-based algorthims to accurately arrive at the correct password.
GPS systems use chance-based algorithms to make them so accurate in pinpointing locations.
Quantum mechanics is all about chance at the most fundamental level, and it underlies some of the most accurate cutting-edge computers.
Not only that, but clouds form by chance, yet accurately deliver their rain to the ground every time.
Rain falls where it falls by chance, but accurately makes its way to a stream or river, and ultimately to a lake or ocean.
There is nothing supernatural or mysterious about the role of chance in producing accurate outcomes.
You are mistaken in believing that accuracy requires mind.
I think this is more a question of *probability* than of logic.
We know that a clock or a computer could not exist without the intervention/ involvement of an exterior intelligence because all our combined human experience and observation tells us that such an event would be totally beyond the balance of probability.
But we do not have access to this sort of experience and observation when it comes to the human brain (or, presumably, the universe). We have what we have. We can make assertions about their origins, based on our personal beliefs and convictions, but they are nothing more than that: assertions.
It is, I believe, a monumental leap (of faith, not of logic) to say that because we do not know the answer to a question, or cannot discover an explanation for a particular phenomenon, that the answer or explanation is therefore a supernatural one.
Now *that's* illogical.
No lol. I wrote my first press release the other day (with a lot of help from Jenny)
And I lost sleep over that
Wow! That's a big one! My first and the only one was like a third of that
I think that what Eng.M is trying to do is called "arguing from ignorance": ie attempting to draw a conclusion from a lack of knowledge.
One can only draw a conclusion from a piece of knowledge: a fact, or facts. Where no knowledge or facts are available, no conclusion can be drawn.
We don't (yet) have any knowledge or facts about the source or origin of the universe, therefore no conclusion can be drawn in respect of that matter.
One has a perfect right to make surmises or conjectures, of course.
What one does not have the right to do is call them "conclusions".
It is very tempting to assume that because something has the *appearance* of being designed that it actually *is* designed.
We know that the only way that man-made artefacts such as clocks and computers get here is because they were created by an intelligent designer, and it is overwhelmingly and understandably tempting to try to apply that same supposedly "logical" principle to organic structures such as eyes, brains and universes.
But it just won't wash. Why? Because it makes no sense to try to explain statistical improbability by postulating something even more improbable (eg a supernatural being).
We've spent enough time already on this Forum discussing evolution by natural selection - ie the infinitely slow, gradual development of organic structures from simple beginnings to
(apparent) statistical improbability .....
So I won't bother mentioning it again!
This is logically correct, and you guys know I believe there is a creator, but I'm not entirely sure who, if they got to design the universe, would have chosen this particular design. Yes, there appears to be design from our perspective here on earth, but until I meet my alien friends who say that there appears to be a design from their home world, it's hard to imagine designing things the way they are.
In other words, while I too marvel at my creator's design, it is somewhat foolish of us (believers) to assume that we really understand the design. Although, I do believe we understand more and more.
Perhaps this is a topic for another thread, but it's too tempting...
elaborate please...no beginning?
P.S. How are my favorite Englishmen this morning? BTW Mark, in Texas, the grammar would not be so proper, it's "rode hard and put up wet!"
LOL - I was paraphrasing, although I lived in Virginia, so we have several options ranging from serious redneck to the other end of the scale. Ever see the film "deliverance."
And yes, I am good , thank you. "Rode hard and put up wet" lol - I had a tough decade there around age 25-35 and aged more than I would have liked
I have to say I am not enamored of the big bang theory because I don't understand it and it doesn't fit with my understanding of things. I have tried and read all sorts, but it seems that the theory begins from the supposition that there was a beginning.
I try not to dismiss things I don't understand just because I don't understand them, but it makes sense to me that there was never a beginning.
And if there was a beginning, what was there before this beginning? Nothing? How can there be nothing?
For there to be nothing, there has to be somewhere for there to be nothing. Therefore there is something.
Definitely a new thread. Science or Religion?
We agree again Mark. Lol.
I don't believe in a beginning either. We as humans always want to think of things in a linear fashion and a lot of times this not helpful.
Obviously I don't ponder how we came to be anymore. We are. Life is. C'est la vie.
However, when I was younger I thought about the Big Bang Theory and for my mind (as I don't believe in beginnings) I wondered if our ever expanding universe was not the product of an ever contracting one.
When matter contracts there comes a point where it can't contract anymore and must by the force of energy begin expanding again, thus causing the Big Bang theory of the ever expanding universe.
So by my logic, when our universe expands to the point where it cannot go any further it will begin to contract, the force of energy pulling it in on itself until it can't contract anymore and thus the cycle continues infinitely.
Are there are physicists on here that could elaborate if this might be theoretically possible?
I sometimes wonder if this fixation we have that everything has to have a beginning and an end is perhaps due simply to the poverty of our imagination.
Evolution has provided us with pattern-seeking, pattern-identifying brains. This has obviously been an enormous advantage to us during our long and arduous development as rational beings.
But the downside is that we may have a tendency to perceive patterns where none actually exists: a sort of intellectual coping mechanism.
Perhaps infinity is exactly that: infinite.
Hi Peter! Hope you and you family are well.
Hi Mark! Ca va? I've just watched the Monaco Grand Prix. Is the weather over there really that bad?
Most of astronomical science today, I believe is the convoluted bolstering of the Big Bang, black holes etc. Makes for a lot of blather, keeps the money rolling in, and if any astronomy student wants to make a career, they had better not doubt the big bang.
Thom cava back
Yes - the weather here is atrocious. It has been pissing down for ages. One day it is hot as hell, the next it is freezing and raining.
And if some one wants to explain the theory of the big bang in words I can understand that don't sound like a scientific version of Genesis, i.e "There was nothing. Then one day there was this big bang and there was something and it all expanded out from that ............ But it wasn't god that did it - it was definitely very scientific and I have the big words to prove it." lol
I don't know about lack of imagination. I just have trouble accepting that the Universe conveniently fits in to our pre-conceived ideas and has limits. It starts and stops and has boundaries?
Let's trade for a week. It's been 100 degrees F all week.
Sorry to ask a question and disappear for a week+, but I think physicists have recently (in the last few years) proven there was a beginning (it's the time right before that they can't quite work out).
I'm curious, wouldn't any explanation sound like a scientific version of Genesis? As far as convenience, it hardly seems to conveniently fit, ergo the endless debate. You mentioned not being enamored w/the big bang theory b/c it doesn't fit your understanding of things...could you elaborate? If you have elsewhere, please direct me there. I hope you don't feel like I'm trying to pin you down, or anything, but this philosophy a la Mark is quite fascinating.
Quite the opposite, my francophilic brother, I think the unknown is the perfect place for our imaginings. If we knew all the answers, our highly evolved brains would simply deteriorate, no?
That is what I would like some one to explain in words I can understand. lol
Yes. If you start from a beginning. i.e there was nothing, then all of a sudden there was something - where was there for the nothing to be?
Not sure they have "proved" it.
Here's the nub of the matter;
Why does there need to be a beginning? That implies an end. What was there before and what will there be after? Nothing? How can there be nothing? If there is nothing, it must be somewhere, which means there is something......
Great to see you back in the forums Jenny!
We need your concise input
If you ignore a lot of the back and forth that came after the question (most importantly the qualification Eng wrote with it), the question itself is nice.
People believe in God for a lot of reasons. A need to feel comfort with death, others' deaths, their own lives, the harsh world around them, and simple fear of all of the above and more. Of course there are other reasons. Some people believe they have experienced God, or something akin to God (aka - Buddhism, which I don't see as a religion so much as a system of beliefs meant for the betterment of the self and society). The list goes on.
The reasons people don't believe in God are a lot like what is listed above, only reversed. Anger or frustration at not having answers to the great questions. Feeling no comfort with death, others' deaths, etc. They have had no spiritual experience beyond what they can or will attribute to natural phenomenon. Again, the list goes on.
Personally, I side towards Mark's point (and I realize we are the minority amongst people), in that I do not believe in God, but neither do I disbelieve in God. I believe anything is possible, but there not being a God seems more probable. Weeping statues, the lame made to walk, Mary on a pancake and other alleged miracles are often cited as proof, but I have yet to see these "proofs" hold up to actual scientific scrutiny.
I know that some occurrences are unexplained. Still, that doesn't mean they can not be explained.
As to the logic debate ... my deceased professor (in the words of my grandmother, a great believer in folklore, wive's tales and a Southern Baptist God) is rollin' in his grave right now. He'd be glad to know Inspirepub is around to straighten things out.
Stockholm, Washington, San Francisco. With transits in Bangkok and Frankfurt.
I'll see Misha in Washington
* disappointed look *
I was hoping you would be in my neck of the woods
logic is very inconstant word and differs from one to another.
I would confess that I can't persuade you logically if I knew your logic.
Logic has a dictionary definition and is a very precise term.
A is larger than B.
B is larger than C.
Therefore, A is larger than C.
That is logical, because given the first two statements, the "Therefore" part is INESCAPABLY TRUE.
As long as the premises (the starting statements) are actually accurately reflecting the real world, then the conclusion (the "therefore" part) will also accurately reflect the real world.
You can have a logical argument which reaches an untrue conclusion.
Jews are better than Muslims.
Christians are better than Jews.
Therefore, Christians are better than Muslims.
This argument is LOGICALLY CORRECT, but it starts from flawed premises, so its conclusion is untrue.
Logic is always an IF/THEN.
You can have an argument which is logically incorrect, but reaches a true conclusion.
My ceiling is above me.
My ceiling is blue.
The sky is above me.
Therefore, the sky is blue.
This argument is NOT LOGICALLY CORRECT, but the conclusion is factually true.
Studies have shown that people find it much harder to spot a flaw in the logic of an argument if they happen to agree with the conclusion.
So, to make a logical argument, you do this.
Premises - you just list them, You don't have to justify them, we all agree to accept them for the purpose of the discussion.
Apply the rules of logic - combine two or three premises, and draw an conclusion which is inescapable, given those premises.
You have not yet done this.
You have claimed that you CAN do this, every time you have said "it is logical that an accurate device must have been created by a mind".
But you haven't actually said what your premises are and how logic leads you to that conclusion, despite Mark patiently asking you do to so at least seven times.
P.S. In discussion, people may dispute the validity of your logic, or they may agree that it is logical and then go on to discuss whether your premises are an accurate reflection of reality.
good logic example but there is an exception for everything as you say below.
because it is an unmeasurable starting or largely changeable from people to people.
no logical relation but common ending.
I will say:
you were made by chance, then you are an accurate system that was made by chance.
if we are part of nature, then give me an example of a chance that produced an organized tool in our life.
thanx for reminding me loooooooooooooooooool
forget about designig and functioning in the nature for a second.
what about beauty and feelings.by chance?
then everything in the world is meaningless.
go for it then.
proove that chance can produce devices with functions directly without a mind intrusion.
by the way,
3.00 (accuracy to chance)
good , 6.00 (accuracy to chance to accuracy)
5.00 since GPS works and designed accurately(it tracks everywhere)
5.5 (many mind assumptions) it doesn't affect chips designing)
0.99 (magic to good life)
but there is still no hall fame for these since you are alone.
You repeatedly use the term "accurate system." I'd like to post something here I found:
"Accuracy is the degree of veracity ... Accuracy describes the closeness of arrows to [a] bullseye at the target center. Arrows that strike closer to the bullseye are considered more accurate. The closer a system's measurements to the accepted value, the more accurate the system is considered to be."
I'm using the above to illustrate a nagging problem I have with your argument... that human beings are an accurate system. I disagree. We are highly inaccurate. To name a few "inaccurate systems" in humans - congenital defects and genetic diseases, disabilities and various problems that cause pain and/or suffering. And that's only the scientifically provable physical barriers people face. There are loads more.
In essence, I'm saying we're far from accurate systems. We're accurate in many ways, but almost all of us are subject to the influences of physical and/or mental chaotic forces.
I was repeating that designing is required for accuracy.
now,I wrote the sentence above because Mark and may be Jenny believe that we are accurate systems.
we consider a PC processor accurate if it does the functions it was made for in the begining with no or few errors.
our minds are more accurate than this.
our minds for example control our movements with no or few mistakes in most cases.
(for example: if you think in your mind that you want to raise your left hand, write it down and try to raise it.you will be able to raise it because your mind gave the right order)
processors are still exposed to defections but we still call them accurate and the same is applied to brains.
defections are more to do with perfections.
we are accurate complicated systems and not Perfect.
the expression related to your explainations could be efficiency.
but usually for middle-aged people : do they all have diseases? what is the average?
I tried before to proove that designing by a mind is required for all accurate systems but I wasn't fully successful.
I still have a confusion between accuracy and perfection.
good point you have here.
I really learn a lot when I debate with you Mark because you let me think again about things I treat them like constants.
this is the power of minds, not to deal anything like a constant.
now tell me,
why do you call yourself an atheist?
I agree with you that it is not necessarily to reject evolution because we don't understand it.
not understanding something doesn't mean it is wrong.
SO, why do you disbelieve in God?
(this is the main topic)
a man as smart as you must be biased.neither a believer nor a disbeliever.
unless, you discovered something very strong that made you a disbeliever.
what is it?
believing is always about something you don't see or entirly know.
even if no body showed you God existence, it is still a matter that needs to believe or disbeileve on.
if someone prooved to you his existence but you still don't want to believe then you are not a disbeliever, you are ignoring reality.
did you get my point?
Yes I do.
Prove his existence and I will believe. I promise.
The moving mountains is a good one. Or the walking on water. But we are going back over old ground. We already discussed this earlier
no need to promise.
I am just saying that believing and disbelieving in God are there even if I didn't prove his existence to you.
No. Everyone will believe in god when you can prove it. Me included.
waiting the bus of my prooves.
it is not like that . you have to help yourself to understand what people want to say and after that it is your option to take it or leave it.
you want a proof?
you are the proof of his existence.
study your body.
I have studied my body and the scientific evidence that supports the fact that I have evolved to this point.
This is one of the many proofs that there is not a creator.
Unless you already believe and are ready to twist the facts to suit your belief
If i wait on the bus of your proves, I will be waiting a long time. I have already waited 500 years - as you measure them.
Interesting that you cannot say that you have no proof.
start a thread and giveus these prooves.
what are facts? evolution ? chance? selection?imagination? escapaing?
you aren't standing at the right station then.
I cannot because the only proof you want is seeing God which is an arrogance in my opinion.
You mean I need to already believe? I will take almost anything except what you are saying i.e
"There is a flower, therefore this proves there is a god" lol
In the bible, a true believer can move mountains, walk on water and bring the dead back to life.
I will take any of those. Or all three - your choice
you are completely right.good for you.
I am not discussing here any holy book.
my beliefe didn't come from holy books.it came from science.
it came from knolewdge.from the state of not being ignorant.
That seems to be the entire basis of your argument. We agree.
Science? What science is that?
Fan-fuc***g-tastic! I couldn't have worded it any better. You kick a** Eng.M.
ps. you do too Mark.
Mark is not asking to see God.
He has already seen "God", and it was not consistent with what Christians refer to as "God".
Mark asserts that "God", as described the the Christians, does not exist.
He is asking to see someone do any one of the things that human believers in the Christian God can reportedly do.
This would be sufficient proof to Mark that he had been mistaken in his perception of God when he saw Him.
A flower (or any other natural phenomenon) is not sufficient proof, because the "God" Mark saw was completely consistent with flowers (and all other natural phenomena).
My question to you is - if you are, as you say, not arriving at your beliefs out of a book, but through personal experience and science, then why are you trying to argue for the existence of a particularly religious and apparently Christian story about "God"?
Every other person I know, whether Christian or not, who has had a personal and direct spiritual experience, agrees about some very fundamental points that are not explicit in the Christian Bible, and also agrees that the Bible is wrong in some places. And scientists certainly do!
It may be a language barrier, but you sound more like a book Christian than a spiritual Christian or a scientific thinker, which I suspect is why Mark is asking you to demonstrate the existence of some of the more far-fetched aspects of the Christian "God".
I would hate to try to have this conversation in MY second language, so I salute you for attempting it, but if you have any ability at all in science or logic, you need to start using logical and scientific reasoning processes in your posts.
I got what he wants.
it could be for some people.
I didn't take the christian picture of God.
I just find it rational that nature systems were planned because simply I know they are very complex devices and can't formed by another way.
some people may think I am stuck with the idea of God and I can't change ,but believe me I spent two years watching and studying animals and their behaviour.
then I became sure that there must be a mind involoved somehow.
you are right.
the bible contradicts itself and modern science.
it was written by humans and there were no signs in it that it will be provided by holy spirits.
I read it and I think it is full of fantasies,rud and clear sexual exprssions.
You have made this very clear. Unfortunately, you are claiming that logic, rational thought and science are what has led you to this conclusion.
And have been unable to back this conclusion up with any of those
Which leads me to think you are stuck with the idea of god and can't change.
I think what Jenny was suggesting is that you try and use logic, or demonstrate a rational thought process other than, "I know they are very complex devices and can't formed by another way." This makes no sense to me at all. Or anyone else unless they already believe.
Or science even. That would work. Failing that, I will accept any of the aforementioned miracles
I don't know which version of god you believe in and to be honest, it makes no difference. I will take whichever proofs you have for your god. At the moment, the Spaghetti monster is winning purely on pasta-appeal
Try reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, everything in there seems to jive with what I've learned when studying biology and also seems to make sense in terms of how these complex devices could evolve. I think that often times people rely on a religious explanation for the origin of man because they have a lack of understanding of how the natural world works and a the slightest bit of study might actually give them enough enlightenment to change their minds.
I will try to proove that something like your brain must have a designer and can't be existed by chance.
so could nominate another thread for this.
(must every accurate device have a designer)
I will try to stick to this topic.
Look forward to it. I am sure it will be good. Good day to you also
I found it very difficult to start from here since I believe it is a logical that accuracy is simply can not be occuring without designing.
loooooooooool , sorry Mark
it is not from my faith in God but from my scientific knowledge.
something working well should have had some mind that directed and organised it to work well.
I think: organisation=mind
I admit it that until now I couldn't proove that chance can't organise anything.
there could be another logical explainations also besides God in our vision that we don't know
but,evolution as we know is not one of them because it is entirely illogical and unscienific.
it is just saying there should have something gradually happened but we don't know how or why.
we just can put assumptions and they are not suppoted by anyway.
I believe in God because I seen it. I believe Mohit called it a Shamanic apporition, either way, I believe because I can't ignore what I have seen with my eyes. God is like a great magician, can and wills things, it's lifes mystery, but one that opens your eyes to something undoubtably beautiful, in which case when you know, then only things that stand in your way are compassion and self sacrifice and a hole lot of praying.
I believe because I can't ignore what I have seen with my eyes.
Bold and beautiful.
like always. your faith is very powerful.
when you say that you have seen it, did you mean his effects?
or, you felt his blessings?
or, something else but not an actual seen?
you mean you believed because of beauty in the world.
I have seen an Eagle so large it encompassed stars in it's wings. Something that could only come from God. Or as it is easier to say, I have seen God, a sign, a creation just for me. Then it disapeared into the Heavens.
I felt it's effects, trembling, fear, awe or for the first time, I woke up. I was alive in reality for a few minutes. Not dead in the world.
I mean, I believe because I know there is God. Upon seeing God, I say that this world right now that we live in, is just a dream. I woke up and realized, yes I may be just a grain of sand, but death doesn't sit over my head and I will continue to walk this life and the next with God.
When you do away with doubt, the world you thougth you knew changes and you can work miracles on your own will and God wills them for you, makes them happen. You can hear better, you can understand more, you know before hand what will happen, you become a will of God.
Beautiful,what a lovely answer.After you come across god,everything changes.You are able to comprehend the magic in you and this universe much better than ever before.You start to communicate with the universe and are continuously astounded and in awe of it.What was impossible before becomes possible for you.
I believe that mans laws make life miserable. Instead of being free to live the life given with the laws set by God through Moses, the dynamics of freedom changed, in which case most live by the laws governed by man not God.
man says murder; God says thou shall not
man say there is no God, God says I am God.
man says I am my own man I need nothing from my mother and father; God says honor them.
man steals what is not thiers; God says don't take it if it is not yours. Ask and recieve.
man tells many lies; God says tell only the truth.
man wants what other man has; God says, get your own.
man says God shows no mercy; God says if you need mercy it is granted because we are vulnerable creatures, incapable of perfection, and in our imperfections God created what is absolutly fragile.
While we think of bats or ants being inferior to us, we are far more inferior to them. As Jesus said: a tree is more obedient than man, a bird is more obedient than man. The wind blows and the trees moves.
People, us, we don't move like a tree, we don't fly like birds, and we crumble when shaken. Instead we wonder around blind, confussed and ultimatly at the mercy of all things Above and Below. Man can talk about all the knowledge and enlightenment and arrogance a man needs to, to make themselves feel alive, but nothing compares to being humbled by the Grace of God in which case it is very easy to put on your heart of hearts then everything is forgivable. This is Gods blessing.
Sandy, I got a strong urge to bow to you, My Goddess
Seriously, look at yourself several months ago and compare to today - you grew remarkably fast from a lost girl into a wise woman
Congratulations, you made the Hall of Fame for that one.
Okay, I understand. Yes, even if there's nothing, that nothing is something and it is somewhere. I agree. I guess I understood it to be our known universe. The beginning being the beginning of what we see, feel, hear, touch, live in, etc. There could have been countless beginnings to countless universes, I suppose.
But, even then, mustn't there have been an origination of it all somewhere, sometime?
Some people think this is the most fundamental theological/ philosophical question of all: Why is there something rather than nothing?
It's an interesting acamemic riddle, but surely it is fundamentally meaningless because any answer prompts its own rejoinder - ie if the answer is "God" then it prompts the question "Why is there God rather than nothing?" ....and so on ...and so on..... into a series of infinite regresses.
The eminent but somewhat controversial physicist Victor Stenger answered the question with: "Because nothing is unstable."
I leave the amateur scientists among us to work out what that means!
The religious argument is often presented as a syllogism:
1. Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has to have a cause.
The first premise is taken as self-evident. But is it? Isn't it simply an *assumption* based on our personal convictions or (perhaps) the poverty of our communal imagination?
To say that the universe is infinitely old doesn't mean that it began an infinitely long time ago -
it means that it had no beginning at all.
by Mahaveer Sanglikar4 months ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So...
by Eng.M8 years ago
God says:(Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors (190) And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they...
by wordscribe418 years ago
The following post is in response to a statement made by another hubber and the many posts I've read using logical fallacies:"the burden of proof" is NOT on the believers. There is no burden to prove He exists...
by Claire Evans13 months ago
We hear often of atheists claiming that have looked for evidence of God but can find none but what would convince them? How do they go about investigating? How do they expect believers to prove it to them when it can...
by andycool7 months ago
I've heard so much in the forums about believing and not believing in Religion or God, being atheist or religious or agnostic and so forth, I've just got confused that is there anyone out there concerned about the role...
by princess g6 years ago
when there's really no evidence of his existence?or am I missing something?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.